hello Ben
B. Bogart a écrit :
cyrille henry wrote:
i don't fear redondancy.
Hi Cyrille,
Perhaps you don't but anyone who is learning PD should! Without consitancy and a lack of redundancy learning PD becomes a much more complex and confusing proposition.
Wherever possible objects with the same functionality should be unified.
yes. i want to unified mapping objects together. and list objects together.
i think mixing list object with mapping objects for a patch is confusing. mapping object should be consistant, and one should not use list object when he's looking for a mapping object.
Otherwise things tend towards a state where the dominant (first written) object gets priority in patches and in workshops. Then the users miss the second object, that might be better, and then we end up with different camps of users using different versions of "functionally" the same object, and incompatible patches.
Its my personal opinion that one should never write an object that overlaps more than 60% of the functionality of an already existing object. One should "fix" the existing object to cover the 40% the new object would allow.
ok. so let's embeded a [list_clip 0 1] in the mapping_clip. what do you think?
If you really want to write your own redundant objects then please don't bother releasing them. It just adds to the chaotic fuzz and it would serve the community much better to integrate rather than "fork" even if its hard and takes longer.
i don't think it's chaotic to have all object need for mapping in a mapping folder, and all object need for list processing in a list folder...
Just an opinion as a PD instructor.
c
.b.